FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[CookinFlat6]

Agreed Rc, the salient facts are that anyone who wants privacy from monitoring online can find a way. therefore its better to teach the person about the dangers and to do everything possible to protect them as well. this does not have to mean overt 24 hour monitoring with the kids 'buy in' - because its just not feasible in the real world.

however there is also a clear demarcation between online exposure and physical danger - that gateway exists inside the kids common sense instilled by the parents as well as at the point of online privacy policies of the environment they are allowed to operate in.

I think the pc brigade are making things worse by scaremongering about respecting the kids privacy becoming a detriment to above methods. Why bring in this issue to confuse things.

When a kid is over to a neighbours to play and the parent phones up to check what they are up to or listens outside the room for a snapshot of what they are upto, why do they now have to start worrying about breaching the kids privacy or setting up problems with trust.

whenever have parents been required to put a kids privacy above security? 'oh daddy its my room and I can do what i want in it' - yes fine but what parent would not covertly breach this to add that level of security? Or do parents now say as the do gooders are advocating - 'oh i cannot check up without creating a future fortune for some shark psychotherapist by breaching trust'

what a joke

[myownalias]

RC, I have not done anything that a less technically proficient person can do; I use Windows 8 built in Family Safety module, which is linked to my Microsoft account, if something is blocked on his computer and he wants access, he can send a message to my personal Email and I can allow/disallow as required. It's a fairly rounded products and fairly simple to use even for the most inept of computer user as there is good online help to walk you through setting up and maintaining an account!

[racechick]

That sounds pretty cool then Myown. if he can asked when he wants access and a discussion takes place as to why or why not access is allowed, that sounds good to me.

[sagi58]

...only a parent actively faced with a child on the internet would have sensible solutions...

By that same token, must a doctor have cancer before he can treat a patient with that disease?
Maybe that film critic shouldn't write a review unless they've acted. Let's bring it closer to home,
a fan can't criticize any F1 driver without having ever turned a wheel in the cockpit.

...but [parents] will have their own solutions and there is a wealth of free software out there to help...

You might remember my saying:

...Maybe there aren't any "one-size fits all" solutions that work for everyone.
Maybe it's just about sharing ideas and how to implement/modify them,
so that they work for you and yours.

...This idea of only overt full time monitoring with the politically correct 'buy in' from the child is ridiculous...

I didn't say that a parent needed their child's permission to monitor their online activity; but, the child should be aware of it.

For future reference: the words "politically correct" and "child-rearing" don't tend to work very well together!

[sagi58]

RC, I have not done anything that a less technically proficient person can do; I use Windows 8 built in Family Safety module, which is linked to my Microsoft account, if something is blocked on his computer and he wants access, he can send a message to my personal Email and I can allow/disallow as required. It's a fairly rounded products and fairly simple to use even for the most inept of computer user as there is good online help to walk you through setting up and maintaining an account!

Great advice!! Will very definitely keep that handy, in order to share!!

[sagi58]

That sounds pretty cool then Myown. if he can asked when he wants access and a discussion takes place as to why or why not access is allowed, that sounds good to me.

Exactly!! Trust is kept intact and open communication exists!!

[sagi58]

...whenever have parents been required to put a kids privacy above security? 'oh daddy its my room and I can do what i want in it' - yes fine but what parent would not covertly breach this to add that level of security? Or do parents now say as the do gooders are advocating - 'oh i cannot check up without creating a future fortune for some shark psychotherapist by breaching trust'

That's what I've been saying:

... More parents should worry less about giving... their children the right to online privacy and worry more about the potential for danger, if they aren't watchful.

i.e. a younger child does not have the right to keep what they're doing online private from their parents.
I realize I should also have added that children must be taught, at an early age, to keep personal details
private from anyone with whom they chat online.

AND...

...Again, my intention was not to suggest that parents be paranoid; but, to discuss what parents
can do to keep their children safe, including not buying into "online privacy" rights for children...

Mission accomplished!

[What's Burning?]

While on the subject of children's safety with the clear and present perils that is the internet, some parents are big proponents of not immunizing their children because of the ingredients that goes into them.

Oh, I've also read that a lot of older children are lured away from their western ways by ISIS and recruited to fight for the caliphate against the west. Those kids are much older and they should be protected from the internet as well, so maybe parents should not be so eager to end parental controls.

[CookinFlat6]

I didn't say that a parent needed their child's permission to monitor their online activity; but, the child should be aware of it.

See thats where we have the issue. You are discussing/trying to discuss/ raise awarenmess of something that you really have not thought through, not in the same way any parent who faces the kids starting off online has.

The child should be aware of it - otherwise its drama later, says someone who is not ultimately responsible for a child at this stage - this is true for almost everyone bar those with kids born in the lastest evolutuion of the internet, i.e post FB twitter etc

The kid should be aware of it - great, but you propose going further and scaring non computer savvy parents by saying 'take the easy route now, take one of the options available, ALMOST all CANNOT involve the kid knowing or understanding to what extent their privacy could be breached if the parents wanted to beyond the non intrusive not critical 'snapshot' monitoring.

Any parent would understand that kids are gonna be kids, and therefore adults need to be adult - which includes saying 'father xmas wont give you presents if yu are bad' without worrying that the kid will need expensive therapy later in life when they discovered you BREACHED THIS MAJOR TRUST

Its too funny, you are arguing against yourself as usual, let the kids know you are watching 24 hrs and they will yearn for the privacy they are missing, and you cant track that, so you have messed up (if you were a parent and listened to crap on the web) because thats the way of the web, constantly evolving, hacks, etc
So whats the alternative? snapshot monitoring JUST AS YOU WOULD IN REAL LIFE - but no hold on parents, sagi says unless you tell them all the details they are gonne need therapy later - but sagi also says the kids privacy should be overtly cast aside in the interests of 24 hr monitoring?

You would be a good alternative to contraception, just speak to any couple about your 'fears' for kids and they will become celibate overnight

[sagi58]

I didn't say that a parent needed their child's permission to monitor their online activity; but, the child should be aware of it.

See thats where we have the issue. You are discussing/trying to discuss/ raise awarenmess of something that you really have not thought through, not in the same way any parent who faces the kids starting off online has...

That's where you are making assumptions. You do know what they say what happens when you ""assume"" something, right?
You're assuming I don't have any involvement in children just learning about the online world. You are assuming that all
parents have the same computer skills you obviously do. You'd be wrong in making both those assumptions.

...The child should be aware of it - otherwise its drama later, says someone who is not ultimately responsible for a child at this stage - this is true for almost everyone bar those with kids born in the lastest evolutuion of the internet, i.e post FB twitter etc...

I say that because the trust between a parent and their children is very precious. I say that because I know what happens when that trust is broken.
I've seen what happens when that trust is broken. It's not important what the issue is, trust is trust and it must be nurtured and respected.

...The kid should be aware of it - great, but you propose going further and scaring non computer savvy parents by saying 'take the easy route now, take one of the options available, ALMOST all CANNOT involve the kid knowing or understanding to what extent their privacy could be breached if the parents wanted to beyond the non intrusive not critical 'snapshot' monitoring...

First of all, you are taking extremes of two different conversations and creating a very different perception than the one I've been careful of sharing.

-> I did not propose anything except discussing options open to parents. That father who had all his children's emails forwarded to him, is ONE example.
That strategy works for him. So what? You don't agree with that; but, no one is asking you to. You decide what's best for you and your child.

-> Personally, I think that a child's trust in their parents is important to keeping lines of communication open. Building trust is essential to that relationship,
as far as I'm concerned. So what? You don't have to agree with me; again, no one is asking you to. Again, you decide what's best for you and your child.

However, there is no reason for you to mock the efforts of other parents doing what they know how to do. You could share your thoughts and computer expertise, without being condescending or using derogatory terms to put across your opinion. It's impossible to take advice/suggestions from anyone who is being arrogant about their knowledge/understanding in any situation, whilst belittling your own efforts and concerns.

...Any parent would understand that kids are gonna be kids, and therefore adults need to be adult - which includes saying 'father xmas wont give you presents if yu are bad' without worrying that the kid will need expensive therapy later in life when they discovered you BREACHED THIS MAJOR TRUST...

Hopefully, that's not the best example you have to offer in comparing a parent's responsibility for the online safety of children and a parent passing on a Christmas tradition. Children do grow up. Children are capable of understanding different things at different ages. Taking responsibility for your young child's safety on the internet follows a release of responsibility model used in education, today.

Of course, there's always the possibility that in using the Christmas example, you are further mocking my own perspective.

...Its too funny, you are arguing against yourself as usual, let the kids know you are watching 24 hrs and they will yearn for the privacy they are missing, and you cant track that, so you have messed up (if you were a parent and listened to crap on the web) because thats the way of the web, constantly evolving, hacks, etc
So whats the alternative? snapshot monitoring JUST AS YOU WOULD IN REAL LIFE - but no hold on parents, sagi says unless you tell them all the details they are gonne need therapy later - but sagi also says the kids privacy should be overtly cast aside in the interests of 24 hr monitoring?

You would be a good alternative to contraception, just speak to any couple about your 'fears' for kids and they will become celibate overnight

I have chosen not to respond to the rest of your comment, as it's clearly written to be insulting to myself.
Not only do you purposefully chose to misinterpret and misrepresent what I'm saying, you have turned this thread into another circular argument.

The moderators can decide what to do with that particular breach of the forum rules.

[CookinFlat6]

You are too easily ""offended"" for someone who constantly objects routinely to anything others say whilst using the whip smiley with liberal abandon.
It's good to stimulate discussion but it's also important to be clear about sweeping statements
You say we should be willing to remove a kids right to privacy in order to protect
But only with the kids 'buy in'
And you then say we shouldn't be willing to breach a kids privacy at all without explicit consent from the kid
Yet you accept that kids are likely at first to have much less understanding than the parents rendering the buy in irrelevant
And later when they Re likely more savvy than parents and can therefore bypass any agreed monitoring making the trust issue irrelevant - that's when we are meant to not breach the trust most even for security's sake?

I think this is confusing and no parent savvy or not needs this kind of advice when many other agencies provide much clearer and wider spectrum of solutions

But we have discussed this, others have chimed in, links provided so no point flogging a dead horse

[CookinFlat6]

However, there is no reason for you to mock the efforts of other parents doing what they know how to do. You could share your thoughts and computer expertise, without being condescending or using derogatory terms to put across your opinion.

Heres some advice - if your kid has a webcam, then make sure its unplugged or facing a wall when not in use. This measure doesnt cost anything but the habit could prevent software remote control of the cam by a perv if the integrity of the environment is breached somewhere

When letting the kids visit Father Xmas, make sure you have a word with him first and if in doubt stand in the room if theres any sitting on laps to be done

When letting the kids go to the roadshow stage version of their favorite programmes, make sure you are there whenever they get any special prizes

Heres a big one - instead of spending time worrying about breaching the kids privacy with or without 'buy in' keep a close eye on adults in a position of responsibility around your kids, such as teachers, priests, doctors, nannies. And bear in mind the following question - do pedos become priests because of the easy access to kids and choirboys, or do priests become pedos because of the easy access they have

Oh yeah, TELL YOUR KIDS HOW TO SPOT DEVIANTS, dont be shy with letting them know around 1 in 10 of adults showing an interest are likely to be PERVERTS who would turn to sheep if kids are not around ( you dont have to actually mention the sheep or the percentage btw)

[sagi58]

You are too easily ""offended"" for someone who constantly objects routinely to anything others say whilst using the whip smiley with liberal abandon...

Possibly because all you do is offend. And, yes, I do object to having to read continuous and consistent offensive comments. Ironically, a little smiley seems to offend you!

...It's good to stimulate discussion but it's also important to be clear about sweeping statements
You say we should be willing to remove a kids right to privacy in order to protect
But only with the kids 'buy in'...

NOT once did I say that parents should remove a child's rights. I said, they should worry less about their child's right to online privacy (i.e. that they be allowed to privately do as they please online and with whom) and be more concerned with keeping their child safe/secure whilst online. I have purposefully paraphrased, since there seems to be a distinct misunderstanding of what I've posted repeatedly.
And, yes, younger children should be aware that a parent can and will read and monitor anything they post online, because their safety far outweighs their online right to privacy to post whatever they like for whomever they choose.
Just as a parent will protect their child in reality, so should they protect their child online.

...And you then say we shouldn't be willing to breach a kids privacy at all without explicit consent from the kid
Yet you accept that kids are likely at first to have much less understanding than the parents rendering the buy in irrelevant
And later when they Re likely more savvy than parents and can therefore bypass any agreed monitoring making the trust issue irrelevant - that's when we are meant to not breach the trust most even for security's sake?...

Again, you seem to belittle the notion that the relationship between parents and children evolve. What works for that relationship when the child is a toddler, will not work as that child becomes a pre-schooler. Nor will what works in a parental relationship with a 10-year-old work for a parent and a pre-adolescent, etc... If a parent's relationship doesn't change, there hasn't been any growth in understanding their child. That's not to say you don't stick to your principles, so much as there is a difference in the expectations in living them and the consequences when they're not adhered to.

So, yes, if a 5-year-old is online, chatting with an unknown "friend", as a parent you should be completely involved and your child should know you do/can read/see everything they are posting. As your relationship grows and that child turns 10-years-old, you may choose to employ one of those "net nanny"-type programs that will filter out words or you may choose to read all your child's email. Different strokes for different folks. Each parent has the right to decide how best to monitor their child's online activities.

By the way, the gradual release of responsiblity model allows the parent and child to determine when that child is best equipped to have more responsiblity (i.e., more privacy when interacting online). That model is used in many educational facilities/structures, it's not something that I've made up. Have you heard of Vygotsky? If not, his theory makes for an interesting read, for parents, as well as other educators.

...I think this is confusing and no parent savvy or not needs this kind of advice when many other agencies provide much clearer and wider spectrum of solutions

But we have discussed this, others have chimed in, links provided so no point flogging a dead horse

Some parents like to discuss these issues with other parents, because it's not always easy to trust agencies, who have a vested interest in selling you their products. Some parents like to hear the opinions of other parents, as this forms a community of sorts where they feel safe to share their concerns.

Not sure what the harm is in that. If you don't think it's necessary to yourself, then it's not a problem.
However, it's not fair to belittle what others feel or experience.

[myownalias]

Oh, for heavens sake, can you two just stop, debate the subject matter and keep the personal crap out of it... is it really that hard?

I don't want to have to lock another thread, Sagi, you complain about circular arguments, yet you perpetuate the circular arguments by continuing to reply.

[racechick]

I think it's sad that this issue turns into a point scoring excercise, because I'm sure there isn't anyone here who wouldn't do their upmost to safeguard their children , and any other child they found in a vulnerable position, that they could offer help to. There are slight differences in how we'd go about it, but I Don't think we're that far apart at all.

For me it's crucial that children are involved in risk assessment. That they learn to recognise risk and manage it. You can't remove risk from a child's life , only minimise it, and to try take them away from all risk is to stop them living.
But whilst working with them to assess risk you will of course have assessed it first and made sure they are already operating in as safe an area as is possible.